Skip to content

April 2026: Thirlwall Inquiry final report due after Easter · CCRC still reviewing 31+ independent expert reports · Shoo Lee Panel (Feb 2025): no medical evidence of deliberate harm.

Lucy Letby Facts

Long-form · Procedural record

The police interviews

Lucy Letby was interviewed under caution by Cheshire Police on three occasions between 2018 and 2020. Across all three, she consistently denied the allegations, offered clinical explanations for each count, and made no admissions. This is what innocence under investigation looks like — and it is material evidence that the pattern of denial was not an invention under trial pressure.

XBlueskyFacebookLinkedInWhatsAppRedditEmail
Last updated
7 min read

The three interviews

Lucy Letby was arrested and interviewed three times during the Cheshire Police investigation:

  • 3 July 2018. First arrest at her home in Chester. Interviewed under caution.
  • June 2019. Second arrest. Interviewed under caution on expanded allegations.
  • November 2020. Third arrest and formal charge. Interviewed under caution before charge.

Each interview was conducted under the standard Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) framework: legal representation, tape-recorded, cautioned, with the full range of rights available to her including the right to silence.

What the interviews establish

  1. Consistent denial. Across all three interviews, over a period of more than two years, Letby denied the allegations consistently. She did not admit to any deliberate harm. She did not confess. She did not change her account between interviews.
  2. Clinical-context explanations. She offered clinical explanations for each event put to her. Her account was that the babies were extremely preterm, that the unit was struggling with its acuity load, that she had been caring for them as professional standards required, and that she had not acted deliberately to harm any of them.
  3. No withdrawal of co-operation. She did not use the right to silence that was available to her. She engaged with the questions put. A defendant who has something to hide most readily exercises the right to silence; a defendant who does not, typically answers.
  4. No inconsistencies exploitable at trial. The Crown’s trial cross-examination could have made substantial use of any inconsistency between her 2018, 2019 and 2020 accounts and her trial testimony. It did not, because the accounts were not inconsistent.

What this does for the “confession” framing

The Crown’s case on the Post-it notes asked the jury to read “I am evil I did this” as a confession. If that reading were correct, one would expect the police interviews to contain some echo of the admission. They do not. The interviews are consistent denials. That is inconsistent with a confessional reading of the notes; it is consistent with the self-blame-under-sustained-accusation reading the clinical- psychology experts have since developed. See our self-blame psychology analysis.

The significance of three separate arrests

Cheshire Police had three separate opportunities, across two and a half years, to obtain admissions through interview. Across all three, they did not. The decision to ultimately charge her in November 2020 was made on the strength of other evidence — the Evans causation opinion, the shift-rota chart, the Post-it notes, the Facebook searches — not on any admission made under interview.

In the Allitt case (1991–1993), the ultimate evidence at trial included specific behaviours witnessed by colleagues and direct forensic-standard findings. In the Letby case, the evidence at trial was circumstantial and interpretative. The absence of an interview admission, in this context, is evidentially significant: it tells us that the Crown never had the defendant’s own words to rely on.

The right-to-silence alternative

In English criminal procedure a defendant has the right to remain silent during police interview. Silence does not on its own support any inference of guilt, but under PACE, a court may in limited circumstances draw an adverse inference from silence in interview followed by reliance on facts at trial that were not mentioned at interview. Letby did not exercise her right to silence; she answered in detail. This removed any possibility of adverse-inference argument. It also meant her accounts were locked in, in detail, from the first interview — and they did not change through the investigation or at trial.

Why the jury was not systematically walked through the consistency

At trial, the Crown’s cross-examination focused on specific apparent inconsistencies or gaps in Letby’s account rather than on the overall consistency of her denial across the three interviews and her subsequent testimony. The jury was not systematically walked through the fact that a defendant who had, across two and a half years and three separate arrests, given consistent denials under PACE-compliant interview was, on that measure, behaving as a consistent-denier does.

Read alongside

Share:XBlueskyFacebookLinkedInWhatsAppRedditEmail